Bs"d
RAA:
>Core samples can only tell you how fast the glacier GREW, since they measure
>what is left. If the ice melted then there wouldn't be any layers left to
>measure...
I'm sure the scientist who said what I attributed to him is aware of this.
Therefore, either I misquoted him, or he meant something else. But I don't
think I misquoted him... Too bad I didn't catch the program name, because
they also give out email addresses for each program - that way, the
question could've been put straight to him.
Eli

Bs"d
RDF:
>Sure. But there might be a lot of meaning (including moral power) in the
>notion that at the end of his life Noach was burned out and psychically lost,
>no longer able to play out the transcendent role...
Somehow, I don't think any of the commentators derive the lessons you speak
of from this particular episode...
Eli

Harav Y.B. Soloveitchik was said to have concluded that it is futile to
try to reconcile Torah with scientific findings. I assume that he meant
that traditional teachings about Torah events and established scientific
data are irreconcilable. RYBS was well qualified to make such an
assessment since he was both an outstanding talmid chacham and had been
trained in math and physics as well as philosophy. The reason for the
above assessment is clear enough. It is a very difficult task to try to
harmonize the evident meaning of the Torah verses in Genesis with
astronomical, geological, paleontological, and archaeological data. If
you try to account also for various medrashim and ma'amarei chazal, then
the task is well-nigh impossible. The attempts to create such harmony
fall into two categories - naive apologetics and more informed
apologetics. Dr. Gerald Schroeder's books fall into the latter
category. They contain much interesting material written by a qualified
scientist (a nuclear physicist who has also done work in geology - I
believe). They are still apologetics. His first book, "Genesis and the
Big Bang" tries to reconcile 6000 vs 15 billion years via Einstein's
"special" theory of relativity using an artificial reference sytem as
"G-D's perspective". His second book, "The Science of G-D", attempts to
do the same using the general theory of relativity in a way that does
not seem to be accepted as valid by those physicists who actually work
in that somewhat arcane field. Other books that have been cited here in
the past, including one cited very recently, seem to fall into the naive
apologetics category. To take a recent example, if the alleged "boiling
water" of a world-wide deluge melted the glaciers of the ice age then
why do ice cores taken in Greenland and Antartica show some 100,000
seasonal layers of ice, and what kept the fish from getting cooked?
It is telling that the "scientific" justifications for traditional
teachings tend to be offered by those who have little or no background
in science. Such claims tend to be based on something that they
heard/saw in the media, or in some book, or in their own speculations.
My own impression of the media is that the science correspondents have
little understanding of the material that they broadcast, and the TV
anchorpeople have no understanding. In general, if the first
announcement of a scientific finding is made in a press release, then
it is just PR and carries little credibility. One should therefore be
very wary of accepting any such media releases as a valid scientific
finding. Only such data that have passed critical review by experts and
the test of time have a real claim to credibility. Geological ages
based on accumulated data on radioactive isotopes and their nuclear
decay products are examples of such established data and theory that
conflict with the traditional dating of creation (except for the
calculation of R' Yitzchok of Acco who has been cited recently). The
absence of physical evidence of a world-wide flood that occurred some
5,000 years ago is an example of negative evidence (admittedly less
convincing than positive evidence). The recent attempt here to
introduce evidence of a Black Sea innundation that occurred over 6000
years ago does not really address the issue of a world-wide flood (It
does bring to mind, however, the ma'amar about the the rise of "Oceanus"
that flooded a "third" of the world in the days of Enosh).
In sum, you can insist on the miraculous nature of events in the Torah
to justify adherence to traditional views. You can even insist that
miracles leave no physical traces. But it is unproductive to attempt to
find valid scientific rationales for the traditional understandings of
these events.
Yitzchok Zlochower

Bs"d
RYD:
>RK all we can surmise is that he had curly hair,
>not that it was long (it may have been, for all we know, but the gemara
>never gives any indication of this).
Upon reflection, I have my doubts about this surmization. We are agreed
that RK, as an amora, was a model of frumkeit. I thus have a problem with
the proposition that he was called K because of his curly hair - which
would mean that it was a distinguishing characteristic of his. But knowing
Chazzal's attitudes towards long hair, which we uphold, I would assume he
wore his hair quite short, and if so, it was quite unrecognizable that his
hair was curly - unless he was a Nazir other than the thirty day variety. I
similarly assume that he was not the only one with curly hair, so why
should it be a particularly distinguishing characterisic for him and no one
else?
Eli

Re: In Avodah V.6 #33 a few days ago, I noticed:
> the haflaga (note the "the" before the "ha-")
I noted the "the" and the ha-. Although this usage is common in
Ashkenazic circles, that doesn't make it correct Hebrew. Consult your
LOD (D=Dictionary).
The haflaga, in Hebrew applies either to sailing or to exaggeration.
The word for separation or differentiation is p'laga. Ha-p'laga, is the
breaking up or separation, often into pelugot, and thus applies to the
dor ha-plaga the generaton in which there was differentiation by language
If the Aramaic is preferred to the Hebrew, the term becomes dor
ha-palga. One could say that this is at least "half" correct.
Without haflaga, one could say I am being divisive, causing a plaga.
I beg forgiveness from the palga that feels hurt by my petty corrections.
VAichi Feleg! Vive la difference!
David

To add to the "85 letter rule" discussion:
Targum Yerushalmi on Ki shem HaShem ekra in Ha'azinu states that Moshe
could not pronounce shem HaShem in this shira until he had said 85
letters that make 21 words.
In the second translation of pasuk gimmel, the targum mentioned that
shem hashem after Kadosh Kadosh Kadosh is to be said after the 21 or 85.
This is a reason given for nuschaot of kedusha that have 21 words or 85
letters before the Shem. Start counting.
The Hizkuni quotes this targum and the Yekkes who use the Roedelheimer
tefilla may find a comment by Heidenheim on this in Mussaf Shabbat
kedusha. For the uninitiated, tefilla=siddur in Yekke talk. (No, I'm not
a Yekke. I was exposed for two years when I lived in Washington Heights,
Frankfort am Hudson.)
kol hab'rakhot,
David

On Wed, Nov 08, 2000 at 03:00:09PM +0200, Shlomo Goldstein wrote:
: It seems to me that Vayhi Binsoa is a makor. Why think it is merely a
: proof?
MSB:
> R' Yonasan was talking about the significance
> of Vayhi Binso'a -- for all we know, he held a shi'ur of some number
> less than 85.
Lo matzinu is a good enough reason for me to refrain from such conjecture.
See Shabbos 115b that brings this number concerning what size sefer to save
from a fire.
Shlomo Goldstein

In a message dated 11/9/00 5:03:38pm EST, linaseli@mail.netvision.net.il writes:
> RYZ:
>> There is a letter from the L. Rebbe to the Ragitchover Gaon on this it is
>> printed in the begining of Vol. 21 of the Igros Kodesh.
> Don't have the sefer. Can you, or someone else give a sikum? I assume that
> like RMF, this letter deals with b'clal is there an inyan to write Bs"d on
> a letterhead.
Here is a free translation of that letter:
...In my previous letter I asked before him if there is to be found a Mokor
to that which people write in letters B"H or BEZ"H, and there is a little
proof to the contrary from Rosh Hashana 18b and in Rashi there BKUSHI Yoclu
Lvateil etc., also in Sanhedrin 11b is Mashma so (as the 3 letters of R"G
that are copied there does not mention B"H - printers notes). and one can't
bring Rayoh from Sanhedrin 96a and Chulin 95b, and as is understod, and in
all Nuschoei Shtoros it is not found, also to note from Yevomos 96b Elazar
Doreish Stam Vhakol Yodi'm etc. Veoid, and it is a wonder that CHDR"G did not
answer me anything on this.
In the printers footnotes he is Mitzyein to Shut Tzofnas Paneiach (Varsaw)
196-7.
Also in the PIskei Tshuva Vol. 3 # 293 The Ragitchover Gaon writes why based
on the Yerushalmi he does not write B"H in his letters.
I want to point out however, that the Rebbe used to write B"H (at least later
on, as at the time he wrote to the Ragitchover some were written w/o B"H, as
noted in the printers fotnotes), and was Makpid that all stationary from
Lubavitcher Mosdos have it.
As to the electronic issues I will leave it up to techies, however just to
point out that there is an opinion that if one shines a light thru a stencil
that has the Shem Havay' cut out he nay not move the stencil away as he would
be Mochek Es Hashem (even though that too is not a Ksav Hamiskayeim). WRT
Mocheik even though a Shem Bloshon Laz may be erased (S"A Horav O"C 85:3)
translitiration may be more Chomur as is Mashma in the sugia in Megila, also
Bizui is worse then Mocheik.
In a message dated 11/10/00 11:23:14am EST, Gil.Student@citicorp.com writes:
> He once went in on one of his
> frequent checks of the sheimos closet and found a pile of small little
> pieces of paper with bs"d on them. Evidently, someone had wanted to
> throw out some notebooks so he tore off the bs"d from every single page
> and put them in sheimos.
There is a Sevara to be Machmir based on the Yavetz in his Migdal Oiz
(Even Bochein Pina 2 S"K 46) who writes: There are those that are
strict not to erase even when written in Roshei Teivos like this HKB"H
and likewise WRT Kinui Rachum (according to the Raavad's opinion in
Hil. Krias Shma [3:5 yz]), because there is not found it's Dugma as a
title for a human being and so is Roui Lyirei Hashem Ulchoshvei Shmoi.
> However, that's not my question, which is based on the
> assumption that most people do - so why not on an email as well?
Perhaps they don't consider it important on a Ksav that is not meant
Lhiskayeim.
Kol Tuv,
Yitzchok Zirkind

On Fri, 10 Nov 2000 09:32:58, Herschel Ainspan wrote:
>> The Rema that forgetting a word of ktores is hayev misa is OC 132
> Note the Rema there says to say k'tores before the yom, as was the
> order in the avodah; tzarich iyun why the siddurim reverse the order
> (and why they put it after musaf on musaf days; k'tores was also before
> musaf in the avodah).
There is a simple answer to this question: no one used to say "the yom."
The ReMo' is quoting the Tur in the name of R. Amrom Gaon's siddur, but if
you look in the Darkhei Moshe, it is clear that the minhag was that Aleinu
was the end of davening. Most qhillos said a kapitel of Tehillim after
shaharis, but in Ashkenaz they said kapitel 83 every day of the week before
Aleinu, in Sefarad they said 86 but changed it on holidays, and in Teiman
(or wherever the Rambam was referring to) they said a different kapitel
almost every day. What the ReMo' is referring to from the Tur is saying the
mishna at the end of Tomid that starts "haShir shehayu halviyim omrim."
That was said by R Amrom every day after the q'tores, and by Ashkenazim only
on shabbos after the qtores, as we still do today. Saying of "the yom" as a
reenactment of what they Leviyim said every day began in the 17th and 18th
centuries. Since saying "the yom" was recognized by all at that time as a
hiddush, it was put at the end of the whole davening by Ashkenazim (i.e.
after Aleinu during the week and at the end of musaf after shir haKavod
after Aleinu on shabbos (even though we say the mishna from Tomid BEFORE
Aleinu).
Seth Mandel

Re: <<there is no point in just saying the words "yom hashishi". Those 2
words by themselves are meaningless.>>
In my previous post on this subject re: RYGB's minhag, I mentioned not
only the YKVK of the rashei teivot but also the 72 words. Are both of
these meaningless too? (This last question is not meant to be taking
sides.)
R"RichW wrote:
> esnachto is as good a pause at the end of a phrase as is a sof passuk.
> Both change words like PEsach to PAWsach....snip as to whether an
> esnachto is the moral equivalent of a sof passuk, but to me it IS
> generally true.
But we find that even a tipcha changes pesach to pasach (B'ha'alotekha,
sh'lishi) And there are numerous examples of zakef katan changing words
to a pausal form (often noted as kamatz be-zakef).
So what is left of the objection to fragments of sentences if Moshe made
so many "moral equivalents" to sof pasuk?
R'SethM wrote:
> 'Al pi Hashem: the pasuq of "vezos haTorah" ends "beyad Moshe," and
> that is where RYBS stopped.
R' Seth, I think you had a slight momentary mental slip or very big typo.
Even I know that the pasuk ends with lifnei b'nei Yisrael. and not
b'yad Moshe. Did RYBS stop at b'nei Yisrael, or perhaps say the entire
sentence of "al pi H' yachanu v'al pi H' yisa'u et mishmeret H' shamaru,
'al pi H' b'yad Moshe?
I assume that I picked the most appropriate second pasuk because I don't
think others like eileh pekudei b'nei somebody or Vayis'u barishona
'al pi H' ... fit the occasion too well.
If we ignore the pasuk shelo paskei, couldn't we say that the words
added to the first pasuk were not a quote but simply preparation for
future opposition to C and R denials of Torah mipi H' b'yad Moshe.
David

On 10 Nov 00, at 12:08, Edward Weidberg wrote:
> Perhaps there's a special hakpodo not to say (outside of a brocho)
> a posuk fragment that has sheim Hashem in it...
Yom HaShishi?
-- Carl
Please daven and learn for a Refuah Shleima for our son,
Baruch Yosef ben Adina Batya among the sick of Israel.
Thank you very much.
Carl and Adina Sherer
mailto:sherer@actcom.co.il

Can it be that the various problems with parts of psukim (e.g., kdusha,
Baruch ata Hashem) etc. are based on a misunderstanding of "Kol pasuk
dlo paskey Moshe"? Can it be that the rule only applies when a posuk
is said *as a posuk* (such as in k'rias haTorah), and not when it is
not intended as "scriptural reading," but as t'fila?
Certainly, when a person said viduy ma'asros, he began with "Biarti
hakodesh," and not from "V'anisa v'amarta," because he is saying it as a
viduy, not as a reading from the Torah. Likewise, the person bringing
bikurim began with "Higadti hayom," and not from "Uvasa el hakohen."
Hence (even assuming that the proscription applies as well to Nach), we
are not reading a pasuk when saying kdusha, but exclaiming that we will
sanctify Hashem by saying, as do the malachim, "Kadosh" and Baruch."
When we make a b'racha, it is not our intent to say half a pasuk, but
rather to use some of the words in a non-pasuk context. Thus these
instances present no problem.
Of course, the matter that began the thread, that of Kiddush, does remain
a problem, because there it is exactly our intention to begin the Kiddush
by reading those psukim in the Torah dealing with Hashem's sanctification
of the Torah; hence the rule of "Kol pasuk etc." applies.
If the above distinction, or some other svara, is not offered, eich
matzinu yadeinu v'ragleinu b'vais hamedrash when we learn gmara, and
parts of psukim in the Torah are quoted? How do we learn the Mishna, and
say in the Hagadah, "l'maan tizkor es yom tzescha," without the beginning
of the pasuk? If, however, the use of a pasuk fragment as a proof,
rather than a reading, is permitted, there is no problem.
Two further points: (a) Why isn't the rule of "Kol pasuk" mentioned
lahalacha in the Rambam or the Shulchan Aruch? (b) Why are we so
concerned with this rule, and not with its counterpart in Brachos 12b,
"Kol parsha d'lo paskey Moshe anan lo paskinan"? If the first rule
dictates to begin Kiddush from "Vayar Elokim," shouldn't the second
require starting from "Vayomer Elokim totzay ha'aretz"?
Sadya N. Targum

The end of the MA in the beginning of OC 282 (previously quoted) says tha
derech tefilla or techina there is no issur of half-psukim.
You write that: "the Rambam in Sefer haMitzvos it clearly
rules against any mention of His name unless necessary in the context of the
letter."
This is false. The Rambam only requires that we bless Hashem. This is
satisfied with the letter "bais". See the Reb Moshe quoted that there is no
other issur. That means no violation of even a positive mitzva.
Concerning a half-pasuk, someone suggested to learn from the laws of
sirtut(underlining). There we find that 3 words require sirtut. So,
perhaps, just like 2 words don't need sirtut; so too they are not considered
a piece of Torah concerning the issur of a half-pasuk.
In Pischei Tshuva in Yoreh Deah 284 he quotes a Rashbash (Sfardi acharon)
who claims that 3 words concerning sirtut define a Torah thought. Therefore
if three words are not yet a full thought, for instance "mayim karim al"
then sirtut would not be required until one is writing 4 or more words.
The AH there rejects this idea. He holds 3 is 3. I think this means that 3
words is a shiur in hilchos sirtut and not a shiur in a Torah thought.
Therefore, it would seem to me that according to AH one could not learn from
sirtut to the issur of a half-pasuk.
Shlomo Goldstein

At 01:00 PM 11/12/00 -0500, Yitzchok Zlochower wrote:
>Harav Y.B. Soloveitchik was said to have concluded that it is futile to
>try to reconcile Torah with scientific findings. I assume that he meant
>that traditional teachings about Torah events and established scientific
>data are irreconcilable. RYBS was well qualified to make such an
>assessment since he was both an outstanding talmid chacham and had been
>trained in math and physics as well as philosophy. The reason for the
I have severe problems with this approach. Let alone that it is
antithetical to classic Brisker machoshovo.
If two things are irreconcilable, and one is emes, then the other must be
sheker.
Thus, if Torah is Emes and Science is irreconcilable with it, then Science,
ipso facto, is Sheker.
Sounds like a great plug for the Chassidic model (not Rabbi Lamm's! The
Chassidic anti-Madda model!) to me.
>In sum, you can insist on the miraculous nature of events in the Torah
>to justify adherence to traditional views. You can even insist that
>miracles leave no physical traces. But it is unproductive to attempt to
>find valid scientific rationales for the traditional understandings of
>these events.
Kana"l.
When, infrequently, I read the Science Times (I am not a science
aficionado, as you all know by now), I note how phrases like "evolution
endowed" or "nature designed" are used in order to exclude MM"H HKB"H from
the picture - to me, it seems evident that Science is desperate to sweep
Hashem under the rug, and that there is no irreconcilable issue - only
recalcitrant scientists.
KT,
YGB
ygb@aishdas.org http://www.aishdas.org/rygb

> If two things are irreconcilable, and one is emes, then the
> other must be sheker.
No, this isn't always true. They could be in two different domains. In such
a case, it would be like trying to reconcile apples and oranges.
> Thus, if Torah is Emes and Science is irreconcilable with it,
> then Science, ipso facto, is Sheker.
No, since the two are dealing with different domains. Science tries to
explan how Teva works -- through natural means.
By definition, Science ignores Non-Teva explainations. That doesn't make it
Sheker.
> the picture - to me, it seems evident that Science is
> desperate to sweep
> Hashem under the rug, and that there is no irreconcilable
> issue - only recalcitrant scientists.
Putting it bluntly -- from a Scientific POV HaSHem has no place in a
Scientific Theory, since He can't be measured, reproduced, falsified.
WHile the scientist may be a deeply religious person in their private life,
and while that faith may be a (or the) motivating factor in their desire to
understand Teva, when it comes to developing a Theory there is no way to put
HaShem into it and still remain scientific.
Akiva

RYGB:
> When, infrequently, I read the Science Times (I am not a science
> aficionado, as you all know by now), I note how phrases like "evolution
> endowed" or "nature designed" are used in order to exclude MM"H HKB"H from
> the picture - to me, it seems evident that Science is desperate to sweep
> Hashem under the rug, and that there is no irreconcilable issue - only
> recalcitrant scientists.
I think that they are sweeping a "religiously oriented G-d" and simply
taking no sides.
Most Scientists - imho - are Deists of some kind. They DO believe in a Prime
mover, they merely dismiss a personal G-d.
My impression is that they use terms such as "universe" and "nature" are
simply euphemisms for G-d that avoid dealing with religious implications.
Illustration: Thomas Jefferson was a Deist and he used the phrase "endowed
by their Creator".
I once read an article about Einstein and he claimed to believe in the G-d
of Spinoza. I'm no maven on Spinoza, but it seems this is the Deistic God
of most scientists.
Philosophically/psychologically speaking, scientists dismiss a personal G-d
- imho - largely because they are dealing with impersonal data. IOW, since
they relate to the universe in an impersonal way, therefore they relate to
an impersonal G-d. Poets, OTOH, relate to things personally and perceive a
personal G-d. Therefore aisi Scientists have a blind-spot wrt a Personal
G-d, and part of TuM's mission is an attempt to open their eyes to look past
this blind spot.
Yitzchok Zlochower:
> In sum, you can insist on the miraculous nature of events in the Torah
> to justify adherence to traditional views. You can even insist that
> miracles leave no physical traces. But it is unproductive to attempt to
> find valid scientific rationales for the traditional understandings of
> these events.
Didn't Science and Torah both emanate from the same Creator?
How could there be a single Universe from One source having a fundamental
contradiction like this?
Wasn't Avraham Avinu's discovery that all the disparate powers, e.g. the
powers of the Sun, the Moonn, the Ocean, the Wind, etc. all emanate from a
Single Source? Didn't every one else in the world (aside from Sehm
vo'Eever) insist on the vvarous forces are in intrinsic conflict and
therefore there could be no such thing as Monotheism?
Philosophically speaking, it seems to me the most basic of Abrahmaic beliefs
that there is a Single Creator and the entire universe functions
harmonisouly under His guidance.
If you can dichotomize Science and Torah then how is this fundemanetally
different than the Zoroastiran shita of two fundamental forces, etc.?
AIUI, the understanding of a fundamental unity of the briah sets Judaism
apart from other beliefs that see contradictory forces at work.
Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com

At the end of Parshas Lech-Lecho most Chumoshim note that it has 126
p'sukim - Nimolu (G'matria 126) Siman.
Some also bring another Siman: "Machnadiv". The Artscroll Stone Chumash
brings a comment on the simonim for every Parsha from Rav Dovid Feinstein
shlita - and he, k'darko, explains what "Machnadiv" indicates and its
connection with the Parsha.
However, I decided to look up my Concordance to see if there was bichlall
such a word in Tenach - and the closest I got was "Machnadvay" - at the
end of Ezra (same letters but different layout).
The Minchas Shai there (who it seems also had a girsa with different
spelling of the word [Mabnadvay]) brings a rayah to "Machnadvay" by the
fact that it is the Siman (gematria) for Parshas Lech-Lecho...
I then looked up the Torah Temimoh chumash and indeed it brings
"Machnadvay" (and not "Machnadiv") as the siman.
This "Machnadvay" is mentioned as one of the many who had married
gentile women and upon the urging of Ezra left her. I thought that the
possible connection with the sidrah may be that Hogor (also a gentile)
was similarly sent away from Avrohom Ovinu. Efsher.
I would be happy to hear better p'shotim and generally to learn where I
can get more information of these end-of-parsha simonim, including who
authored them, and/or when did they first appear, has there been any
research into them and are they mentioned by any Rishonim or Achronim?
SHLOMO B ABELES

Is this a mitzvah(rather than just perhaps a logical thing to do) for
non-Jews? The story in the gemora re: the nonJew who would not wake his
father as well as the medrash that yaakov feared meeting esav because of his
twin zechusim of having lived in eretz yisrael and kavod av seem to imply a
mitzvah(with reward). If it is a mitzvah, what is the source-is it somehow
subsumed under the zayin mitzvot(I didn't see it even in the Rambam's
seeming extended list-66?)?
Kol Tuv,
Joel Rich

R"RichW wrote:
> esnachto is as good a pause at the end of a phrase as is a sof passuk.
> Both change words like PEsach to PAWsach....snip as to whether an
> esnachto is the moral equivalent of a sof passuk, but to me it IS
> generally true.
David:
> But we find that even a tipcha changes pesach to pasach (B'ha'alotekha,
> sh'lishi) And there are numerous examples of zakef katan changing words
> to a pausal form (often noted as kamatz be-zakef).
> So what is left of the objection to fragments of sentences if Moshe made
> so many "moral equivalents" to sof pasuk?
FWIW re: the Tipcho we have EphrOYim instead of EprhRAim too.
One of the sforim on Kkiras hatroah explained this Tipcha thusly:
In those psukim where the tipcha is the BIGGEST hefsek, it is a stand in for
an esnactho or a defacto ensnatho, and therefore it bahves like an esnachto.
The PAWsach and in Beha'alosho and the EphrOYim in Shelach both have the
Tipcho as the biggest divider of the passkuk in each case, and therefore
those tipchos behave like esnachtos. Which leaves it a gray area.
Now tell me what makes the two yelid bOYis instead of yelid bAYis in Lech
Lecha when both are on zokei katan?
Sadya N. Targum
> Can it be that the various problems with parts of psukim (e.g., kdusha,
> Baruch ata Hashem) etc. are based on a misunderstanding of "Kol pasuk
> dlo paskey Moshe"? Can it be that the rule only applies when a posuk
> is said *as a posuk* (such as in k'rias haTorah), and not when it is
> not intended as "scriptural reading," but as t'fila?
...
> If the above distinction, or some other svara, is not offered, eich
> matzinu yadeinu v'ragleinu b'vais hamedrash when we learn gmara, and
> parts of psukim in the Torah are quoted? How do we learn the Mishna, and
> say in the Hagadah, "l'maan tizkor es yom tzescha," without the beginning
> of the pasuk? If, however, the use of a pasuk fragment as a proof,
> rather than a reading, is permitted, there is no problem.
Sadya brings up a META-point.
That is we HAVE a number of examples of cut-off psukim. What makes us think
that the principle of kol passuk OUGHT to change the accepted way it has
been done?
No doubt it's a good kasha. It certainly merits discussion and analysis.
However, given the fact that there ar a numnber of normative cases that
conflict with our "apparent" understanding of "kol passuk" shouldn't that
lead us to accept the hanhagga as normative and leave us in a "tzarich
iyyun" as to how to answer this kashah INSTEAD of going ahead and modifying
the nusach as we know it?
And even given a "weak" answer, is it not likely there is the potential for
a definitive answer?
To cross threads, a weak answer that reconciles science and Torah does not
rule out a more definitve answer. Meanwhile, lo alacho hamlacha ligmor. We
can take our best shots NOW as hava aminos and allow for the process of
shakla v'tarya to bring us closer to a more definitve answer. The gmoro is
not afraid to show us how this process of shakla v'tarya works. Sometimes
weaker answers are only a prelude to better answers. Nipping this process
in the bud is imho not the way to go. Let the shakla v'tarya proceed. It
might take generations, but what's the hurry?
Shalom and Regards,
Rich Wolpoe
Richard_Wolpoe@ibi.com